Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ZENAIDA BUGARIN v. CECILIA B. PALISOC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 168612 2014-12-10	PHILIPPINE ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. CA LEONEN, J.
A petition for certiorari is a special civil action "adopted to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by the lower court or quasi-judicial agency, or when there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of such court or agency amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction."[97] An extraordinary remedy,[98] a petition for certiorari may be filed only if appeal is not available.[99] If appeal is available, an appeal must be taken even if the ground relied upon is grave abuse of discretion.[100]
	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
Because of the longer period to file a petition for certiorari, some litigants attempt to file petitions for certiorari as substitutes for lost appeals by certiorari. However, Rule 65 is clear that a petition for certiorari will not prosper if appeal is available. Appeal is the proper remedy even if the error, or one of the errors, raised is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the court rendering judgment.[197] If appeal is available, a petition for certiorari cannot be filed.
	GR No. 173616 2014-06-25	AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The RTC's duty to issue a writ of execution under Section 21 of Rule 70 is ministerial and may be compelled by mandamus.[49] Section 21 of Rule 70 presupposes that the defendant in a forcible entry or unlawful detainer case is unsatisfied with the RTC's judgment and appeals to a higher court. It authorizes the RTC to immediately issue a writ of execution without prejudice to the appeal taking its due course.[50] The rationale of immediate execution of judgment in an ejectment case is to avoid injustice to a lawful possessor.[51] Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the appellate court may stay the writ of execution should circumstances so require.[52]
	GR No. 155306 2013-08-28	MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG STAYFAST PHILS. v. NLRC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The proper remedy to obtain a reversal of judgment on the merits, final order or resolution is appeal. This holds true even if the error ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the decision, order or resolution. The existence and availability of the right of appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for the latter remedy is that there should be no appeal.[26]
	GR No. 147257 2013-07-31	SPS. JESUS DYCOCO and JOELA E. DYCOCO v. CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The proper remedy to obtain a reversal of judgment on the merits, final order or resolution is appeal. This holds true even if the error ascribed to the court rendering the judgment is its lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or the exercise of power in excess thereof, or grave abuse of discretion in the findings of fact or of law set out in the decision, order or resolution. The existence and availability of the right of appeal prohibits the resort to certiorari because one of the requirements for the latter remedy is the unavailability of appeal.[25]